Not all doves are turtledoves. Saying tor is "dove" is like saying aryeh is "cat". It's technically correct, but inaccurate and misleading. (Of course, anyone who associates words based on their resemblance when one is spelled backwards isn't concerned about such niceties.)

I'd also like to point out that older varieties of Hebrew had two sounds for the tav. Tor has a dagesh, making it a "hard" sound, /t/. Rut(h) however is dageshless meaning it probably had a [s] or [θ] sound. Both are /t/ in Modern Hebrew, but the book of Ruth is a few millenniums (millennia?) older than that.

Native: English (NW American)Advanced: Spanish Intermediate: French Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian) Some day: German

Since these sounds occurred in complementary distribution, this wouldn't be a problem - it would be [t] at the beginning of a word and [θ] elsewhere. (The pronunciation with [s] is a later innovation.) But it's a specious argument anyway because it's stupid to claim such and such word is derived from the same word spelled backwards. As far as I know, the Hebrews only wrote in one direction. It just happens to be the opposite of the direction we write in.

falasha wrote:"Uh, I don't think you can have a coincidence. The only thing I could find on cicer was the famous roman Cicero, and that cicer means chickpea. I also know now that it's not related to the Latin word for dove, columba. I do not know what you are trying to say with (c)."

Cicer is the symbology used for domesticated birds and is the root for the word "chicken". Sorry you have not been able to follow along. The etymology of Columba is best explained by symbology. You probably think this word was assigned by a higher power. Other words that are cognate to columba are; columen - principle beam extending along the roof line, columna - pillar, columbarium - dove cote.

The root of this word is probably Chaldee "KLYM" which means built to last long, strong, sound. A column is a man-made structure that is strong and built to withstand the elements. The Book of Ruth tells the story of the widow Naomi returning home with her daughter-in-laws, Ruth and Orpah. One daughter left (Orpah which means to "break neck") but the other (Ruth is TOR/Dove spelled left to right) stays with her mother-in-law and supports her by picking up the leftover grain in the fields. The Ruth marries the owner of the field (Boaz which probably means "Pillar") and they have a child (Obed which means "slave"). This myth is saying that doves use man-made objects for habitation and are supported by the leavings of agriculture. The name of dove "columba" reflects this common cultural symbol.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Please provide.

Please point out the extraordinary claim so I can narrow down my response.

Claim 1: "Chicken" is derived from "cicer."Claim 2: Chaldean "KLYM" is source of "columba."Claim 3: "Ruth" is from backslang for "TOR."Claim 4: Your linguistic interpretation of the book of Ruth.

TurTur or Terter is a type of Dove. Interesting that Ruth is a Moabite and Turtle Doves are indigenous to the cliffs of the mountains of Moab. This same specie has become habituated to areas in Israel, Syria and Cyprus. Moabites are said to be descendants of the refugees from the destruction of the Cities of the Plain.

dtp883 wrote:Uh, no. Chicken, as are most of our barnyard friends, is a word of Germanic origins. Compare, Swedish kyckling, German Küchen, and Dutch kieken with English chicken.

In origin, it is probably a diminutive of cock. So I guess we're back to connecting chickpeas and piss!

Your theory lacks the component of common sense and is, therefore, implausible. A god-given economy consisting of egg-laying FEMALES producing chicks to be eaten or sacrificed would not have the symbology of a cock. That is your own prejudicial world view. The ancients knew the females were the producers and Tor or Terter is a feminine noun.

Talib wrote:Since these sounds occurred in complementary distribution, this wouldn't be a problem - it would be [t] at the beginning of a word and [θ] elsewhere. (The pronunciation with [s] is a later innovation.) But it's a specious argument anyway because it's stupid to claim such and such word is derived from the same word spelled backwards. As far as I know, the Hebrews only wrote in one direction. It just happens to be the opposite of the direction we write in.

The ancient Hebrews used anagrams, parables, synonyms, insertion of meaningful letters, etc. as symbology to create meaning. Each letter has a symbolic meaning and the order has importance. What is stupid is to claim the ancients did not know how birds defecate. You must be a city boy.

Claim 1: Chicken diminutive of chiche and chiche derived from cicer.Claim 2: http://books.google.com/books?id=m2QSAA ... ym&f=falseClaim 3: This is not my original theory. This came from a Torah study I read some time ago. Also, Ruth is not from any regular Hebrew root and it's origin is still speculative. Claim 4: I don't expect you to understand since you have problems with parables and metaphors.

BTW: I am claiming all these word have a similar origin. By "misusing" are you saying they do not have same origin?